Chennai Court January 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajiah Nadar Vs. Manonmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad213; 1999(1)CTC245; (1999)IIMLJ563
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No.148 of 1984 reversing the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in O.S.No.217 of 1982. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. 2. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale praying for a decree directing the defendant to execute a sale deed on receiving the balance of Rs.6,250 within the date to be specified by the Court, failing which the Court to execute the sale on behalf of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the defendant and the defendant entered into an agreement of 11.10.1981 with the plaintiff to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.15,750 and had received an advance of Rs. 5,500 on that date itself and had executed a written agreement to that effect. As per the conditions of the agreement, the defendant should execute a sale deed at the expense of the p...
Voice (Consumer Care Council) Rep. by Its Founder Trustee, Mr. K.M. Vi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC151
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a voluntary consumer organisation has filed this writ petition in public interest, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 herein to take appropriate legal measures against some of the Tamil Dailies and Weekly Magazines viz., respondents 3 to 8 herein, inter alia contending that they have developed a deplorable conduct in selling their 'Deepavali' issues and for improving the circulation by announcing huge prizes, and also for a further direction preventing such activities to put a quietus to their unjust enrichment in the process of sale.2. The petitioner has stated that the provisions of the Prize Competition Act, 1955, and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Acts' in short) prohibit any Scheme by which money is collected announcing huge prizes. Amongst both the Acts, in the former Act, the contravention is non-cognisable and in the latter Act, it is cognisable. Apart from the af...
S. Kannan and Another Vs. G. Saraswathi Ammal and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC403
ORDER1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.98 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, who have succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court are the appellants in this second appeal. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1996 made in A.S.No.54 of 1986 on the file of the District Court, Madurai.2. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:-(a) Whether the order of attachment before judgment made in the money suit without notice to the third defendant-judgment debtor is valid and of legal effect?(b) Whether the purchase of the suit site by the decree holder in the name of his son the 4th defendant without the sanction of the Court was legal and the Court auction sale is valid in law?(c) Whether the first defendant would be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee or his payment to mortgage decree-holder would be of a volunteer?3. Heard Mr. T.M. Hariharan, the learne...
Lourdumari Vs. L. Jayachandra Babu and 10 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC256
ORDER1. The 12th claimant in LAOP No.150 of 1979 on the file of the Sub court, Krishnagiri, whose claim had been negatived by the two courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. The appeal arises out of a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 30 of The Land Acquisition Act. 2. Heard Mrs. Krishnaveni for the appellant and Mr.V.T. Gopalan, senior counsel appearing for Mr.C.R. Muralidharan for the respondents. At thetime of admission the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court: (i) Whether Ex.B.l is a benami purchase in the name of Swamikannu for the benefit of Guruswamy Naidu? (ii) Whether the finding that Respondents 1 to 11 have prescribed title by adverse possession is based on no evidence? 3. An extent of 52 cents out of 48.48 acres comprised in Survey No.614/2 in Mohanahalli Village was acquired among other lands. As there were competing claims, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under section 30 of the Land A...
Mohammed Asif Vs. State by Additional Superintendent of Police Cb, Cid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)743; 1999(3)CTC25
ORDER1. This revision is to quash the orders passed in the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. 2. This revision has arisen in this way: The petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C.No. 13 of 1997 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge, Madras. The petitioner herein was the Minister for Rural Industries of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 24.6.1991 to 14.2.1992, during which period, the alleged offence are said to have been committed. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 24.3.1993 and on 30.3.1993, he was elected as the Chairman of the Wakf Board which post he relinquished on 9.6.1997. The respondent instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others for alleged commission of offence under sections 120-B, 409, 467 and 477-A I.P.C. and also under Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption. Accordin...
Veera Property Development Pvt. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Tamil Nadu Slum Clea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad304; (1999)IMLJ676
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of the respondent dated 12-3-1998 under which the bid amounts of the petitioners were rejected.2. The petitioners pursuant to the notification in the newspaper dated 19-12-1997 of the respondent, calling for tenders proposing to purchase the commercial plots at Pallikkaranai Site and Service Scheme adjoining the Velachery --Tambaram Highway, the petitioners submitted tenders or participated in the auction held on 22-1-1998. Since the petitioners are the highest bidders, they paid 25% of the bid amount, apart from the Earnest Money Deposit. According to the petitioners, the payment of the said 25% of the cost was made by way of cheque within the time stipulated and the same has been realised by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that accepting the highest bid the respondents realised the said 25% of the bid amount, the part of the consideration, they cannot now pass the i...
Hari Raj H. Vs. Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ37Mad
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947, in T.S.E.No. 27/94, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition.2. The brief facts are as follows: He joined M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited at Madras, first respondent herein as Sales Representative during 1984 and subsequently he was promoted as Sales Executive with effect from February 1, 1991. While so, he received an order dated January 25, 1994 terminating his services with immediate effect from the close of Office hours on January 25, 1994. It was also referred in the order that the determination of services has been done as per Memorandum of Agreement dated April 28, 1991. Aggrieved by the said order, he issued Lawyer's noticed dated February 10, 1994 and requested for reinstatement of service with all attendant benefits. The first respondent sent a reply dated March 10, 1994 confirming the order of termination of services. Against the said orde...
V. Rajavelu Udayar (Died) and ors. Vs. Chandrasekaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ453
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. S.A.No. 210 of 1987 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.1985 made in A.S.No. 96 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.4.1982 made in O.S.No. 461 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee.2. The first defendant in the suit O.S.No. 461 of 1981 who had lost before the two courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. The first defendant died pending the appeal and respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 2 and 3) were transposed as appellants 2 and 3 as they are recorded as the L.Rs of the sole deceased appellant by order dated 5.12.1991 in C.M.P.No. 8902 of 1991.3. S.A.No. 211 of 1987 is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 29.11.1985 made in A.S.No. 76 of 1982 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1982 made in O.S.No. 481 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee.4. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 481...
The Licensee, Bhuvaneswari Talkies, Gudiyatham Vs. the Appellate Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad339; 1999(1)CTC266
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent made in D.Dis.(L) C.A. 177/88, dated 19.12.1991 and of the second respondent made in RC.No.E4/72173/88 dated 16.11.1988 and quash the same.2. In brief, the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner theatre with regard to one alleged violation, namely, over accommodation said to have taken place on 20.5.1988. Taking into account that the petitioner had compounded the offence punishable under Section 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act the second respondent by a proceeding dated 16.11.1988 suspended C Form licence of the petitioner for seven days by exercising his power under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act. Against the said order of the second respondent-Collector, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 9(A) of the said Act before the first...
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Samsons R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR86]; (2000)IILLJ1490Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal as against the order dated February 21, 1989, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 19 of 1986.2. The appellant, by its notice dated February 19, 1986, called upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,255 as damages for the delayed payment of contribution for the period from September, 1976, to July, 1978. The respondent questioned the said demand by filing a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, wherein, it is stated that (1) the respondent has paid the said contribution amount in time, and hence, the damages claimed by the appellant is not correct; (2) the appellant had no legal authority to levy and claim damages, as there was no valid delegation of the powers.3. The appellant resisted the said petition on the ground that the damage was claimed under the notice dated October 27, 1979, and the respondent should have filed the petition within...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »